Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Zach McGuire v. Kenoma, LLCgreen1 sentence2023Woolery bases his claim on Rule 31.02(b), which states, “If a defendant in a felony case appears for arraignment without counsel, and if appointment of counsel is waived by the defendant, the reporter shall prepare a transcript of such proceedings and file it in the case.” Because his arraignment was not transcribed or recorded, Woolery posits that he cannot test the adequacy of the trial court’s compliance with Rule 31.02 with respect to the requirement that the court shall advise [him] of the court’s willingness to appoint counsel if he is unable to employ counsel upon a showing of indigency | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1993For a defendant to effectively waive his right to counsel and proceed pro se, there must be a showing that (1) defendant is competent to make an intelligent waiver of counsel, State v. Williams, 716 S.W.2d 452, 453 (Mo.App.1986); and (2) defendant’s request is timely and unequivocal. | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Stategreen1 sentence1993Richardson v. State, 773 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Mo.App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Freemangreen1 sentence1986State v. Freeman, 702 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Mo.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blackmongreen1 sentence1986There must be a showing that the defendant is competent to make an intelligent waiver of counsel, State v. Blackmon, 664 S.W.2d 644, 648 (Mo.App.1984), and that his request to proceed pro se is unequivocal. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas Patrick Schram v. Hoyt C. Cupp, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiarygreen1 sentence1971Schram v. Cupp, 9th Cir., 436 F. 2d 692, 695 [ 1 ]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Von Moltke v. Gillies
green
2 sentences1992Id. (citing Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 723-24 , 68 S.Ct. 316, 323-24 , 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948)). 1992Id. (citing Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 723-24 , 68 S.Ct. 316, 323-24 , 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948)). | 2 | 1978–1992 |
State v. Black
green
1 sentence2021The State would [] present their case and then I would present my case and Your Honor would give it to the jury and we would see what would happen from there." The record reflects that Lee understood "exactly what rights and privileges he [was] waiving, as well the dangers associated with waiving constitutional rights." Black, 223 S.W.3d at 156 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Charles Matney, Jr. v. Bill Armontrout
green
1 sentence2002Relying on Moran, the Mat-ney court rejected the defendant’s claim, finding that “[a] defendant who retains counsel, then waives his right to such counsel upon arrest, exhibits an even greater understanding of the nature of his legal rights and, consequently, an intelligent waiver of such rights.” 956 F.2d at 826 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Watson
green
1 sentence1992Id. (citing Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 723-24 , 68 S.Ct. 316, 323-24 , 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948)). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Carnley v. Cochran
green
2 sentences1978Among the cases relied upon are Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 , 82 S.Ct. 884 , 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962); Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 , 68 S.Ct. 316 , 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948); and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). 11 . 1978Among the cases relied upon are Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 , 82 S.Ct. 884 , 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962); Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 , 68 S.Ct. 316 , 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948); and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). 11 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences1978Among the cases relied upon are Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 , 82 S.Ct. 884 , 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962); Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 , 68 S.Ct. 316 , 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948); and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). 11 . 1978Among the cases relied upon are Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 , 82 S.Ct. 884 , 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962); Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 , 68 S.Ct. 316 , 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948); and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). 11 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Edmondson
green
1 sentence1975He relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), and State v. Edmondson, 461 S.W.2d 713 (Mo.1971). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
green
2 sentences1975He relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), and State v. Edmondson, 461 S.W.2d 713 (Mo.1971). 1975He relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), and State v. Edmondson, 461 S.W.2d 713 (Mo.1971). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1971As to points I and II, relating to an intelligent waiver of counsel, the record is not silent as appellant contends as being within the ban of presuming waiver from a silent record under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 . 1971As to points I and II, relating to an intelligent waiver of counsel, the record is not silent as appellant contends as being within the ban of presuming waiver from a silent record under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Davis v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences1969The Miranda case is again cited, and on the latter point additionally Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737 , 86 S.Ct. 1761 , 16 L.Ed.2d 895 . 1969The Miranda case is again cited, and on the latter point additionally Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737 , 86 S.Ct. 1761 , 16 L.Ed.2d 895 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Massiah v. United States
green
2 sentences1967Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 ; Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 , 84 *241 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 . 1967Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 ; Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 , 84 *241 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Gideon v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences1967Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 ; Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 , 84 *241 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 . 1967Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 ; Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 , 84 *241 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
State ex rel. Estes v. Gaither
neutral
1 sentence1908Now, in order to preserve an intelligent exception, the ruling of the court on the motion should appear in the bill, as it does in connection with the exception. [State ex rel. v. Gaither, 77 Mo. 304 ; In re Pound’s Estate v. Cassity, 91 Mo. App. 424 .] When the whole record is considered, including the bill of exceptions, we see preserved properly in the bill a ruling on the motion and an exception to that ruling, but when we turn to the record entries there is (barring the abortive entry of December 20th) an absence of any ruling whatever. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
York v. Stigall
neutral
1 sentence1908If the bill of exceptions contradict the entries in the record proper in particulars of fact, which should only appear in the record proper, then it might very well be said that the recitals in the.bill could not be ■allowed to establish the fact. [Ricketts v. Hart, 150 Mo. l. c. 68; York v. Stigall, 204 Mo. 407 .] But in this case there is no conflict. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Estate of Pound v. Cassity
neutral
1 sentence1908Now, in order to preserve an intelligent exception, the ruling of the court on the motion should appear in the bill, as it does in connection with the exception. [State ex rel. v. Gaither, 77 Mo. 304 ; In re Pound’s Estate v. Cassity, 91 Mo. App. 424 .] When the whole record is considered, including the bill of exceptions, we see preserved properly in the bill a ruling on the motion and an exception to that ruling, but when we turn to the record entries there is (barring the abortive entry of December 20th) an absence of any ruling whatever. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Connoble v. Clark
green
1 sentence1896We have decided in Connoble v. Clark, 38 Mo. App. 476 , that, if the court can not upon the facts in evidence lay down an intelligent rule to enable the jury to determine the quantum of damages, nominal damages only can be recovered. | 1 | 1896–1896 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.